the Proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment

[revelarts]

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

... An American editorialist, outraged by the government's intrusive meddlingin health care, angrily contended that restrictions on freedom of medical choicewere the product of an insidious conspiracy among elites both inside and outsidethe government. He argued that state interference in the therapeutic choices ofcitizens represented an unconstitutional violation of the people's most basicrights. The writer ominously declared, "The ... duty demanded on a cargo of teain '76, was of small importance, but . .. the principle it involved . . . turned thewhole harbor of Boston into one . . . teapot." The writer warned the"demagogues" in the legislature "to remember that the blood of that tea party stilllives and runs" in their constituents' veins. He sought the support of "every man... who does not wish to be trampled in the dust and deprived of hisconstitutional liberty."'The column described above was not published in the twenty-first century,but rather appeared in an 1838 issue of the Botanico-Medical Recorder, a journalof alternative medicine. The author was almost certainly Alva Curtis, the leaderof a group of botanical practitioners known as the "Independent Thomsonians." Thomsonianism was a system of cure developed some thirty years earlier by aNew Hampshire farmer and itinerant healer named Samuel Thomson. ....

The Origins of American Health Libertarianism
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstre...pdf?sequence=2

Now Is the Time! Support the Proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment
December 20, 2022 3 Comments
By Michael LeVesque, NHF Board Member

The proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the long-awaited eleventh amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Amendment states the following:

“All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments shall make no law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. Nor shall the President, Congress, State Legislatures or Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments make any law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s right to medical privacy and freedom without an individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual’s condition and danger it presents.”

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

Yea or Nay?

& why?

[fj1200]

^The pro-choice crowd is going to love that.

[AHZ]

^The pro-choice crowd is going to love that.

but the trans eugenicists won't like being unable to administer gender affirming care, aka sterilization.

[fj1200]

but the trans eugenicists won't like being unable to administer gender affirming care, aka sterilization.

That prohibition isn't in there.

[revelarts]

^The pro-choice crowd is going to love that.

A woman can do whatever she wants to her body.
But not to the children she carries.

[AHZ]

That prohibition isn't in there.

the state forcing medical care on minors without parental consent is covered.

[SassyLady]

I think the part that pisses me off the most is censoring alternative medicine. When my pharmacist shut down ivermectin I realized the extent of the medical tyranny we were being subjected to.

Taking away doctors license to practice because they treated their patients with alternatives to the vaccine is criminal.

[Kathianne]

I think the part that pisses me off the most is censoring alternative medicine. When my pharmacist shut down ivermectin I realized the extent of the medical tyranny we were being subjected to.

Taking away doctors license to practice because they treated their patients with alternatives to the vaccine is criminal.

I totally agree with you on the above. If this was widespread, I'm at a loss why MDs and Pharmacists wouldn't bring class action suits.

[fj1200]

A woman can do whatever she wants to her body.
But not to the children she carries.

That's not the way that they will read it.

the state forcing medical care on minors without parental consent is covered.

The problem isn't the state forcing that "care." Willing and enabling parents are allowing it.

[revelarts]

That's not the way that they will read it.
.

Nothing new there.

Personally I'd add a clause that made it clear that unborn children cannot be subject to drugs or medical procedures that will clearly harm the child.

[Gunny]

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

... An American editorialist, outraged by the government's intrusive meddlingin health care, angrily contended that restrictions on freedom of medical choicewere the product of an insidious conspiracy among elites both inside and outsidethe government. He argued that state interference in the therapeutic choices ofcitizens represented an unconstitutional violation of the people's most basicrights. The writer ominously declared, "The ... duty demanded on a cargo of teain '76, was of small importance, but . .. the principle it involved . . . turned thewhole harbor of Boston into one . . . teapot." The writer warned the"demagogues" in the legislature "to remember that the blood of that tea party stilllives and runs" in their constituents' veins. He sought the support of "every man... who does not wish to be trampled in the dust and deprived of hisconstitutional liberty."'The column described above was not published in the twenty-first century,but rather appeared in an 1838 issue of the Botanico-Medical Recorder, a journalof alternative medicine. The author was almost certainly Alva Curtis, the leaderof a group of botanical practitioners known as the "Independent Thomsonians." Thomsonianism was a system of cure developed some thirty years earlier by aNew Hampshire farmer and itinerant healer named Samuel Thomson. ....

The Origins of American Health Libertarianism
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstre...pdf?sequence=2

Now Is the Time! Support the Proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment
December 20, 2022 3 Comments
By Michael LeVesque, NHF Board Member

The proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the long-awaited eleventh amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Amendment states the following:

“All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments shall make no law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. Nor shall the President, Congress, State Legislatures or Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments make any law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s right to medical privacy and freedom without an individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual’s condition and danger it presents.”

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

Yea or Nay?

& why?

Isn't there a problem with needing to declare freedom from something government imposed that is unconstitutional to begin with? Compounding legislation, as usual

If however it is the only form of relief from unconstitutional rule, I'd be be for it.

[AHZ]

I totally agree with you on the above. If this was widespread, I'm at a loss why MDs and Pharmacists wouldn't bring class action suits.

because big pharma controls the entire health care industry.

[Kathianne]

because big pharma controls the entire health care industry.

Which has what to do with the legal system? Spare me 'everything is corrupt,' we need to get rid of it all. 'I am really for the Constitution, we just need to suspend it, to bring about what I want. I'm so different than the far left.'

[AHZ]

Which has what to do with the legal system? Spare me 'everything is corrupt,' we need to get rid of it all. 'I am really for the Constitution, we just need to suspend it, to bring about what I want. I'm so different than the far left.'

there's a law now in california where doctors cannot disagree with big pharma decrees.

everything is basically corrupt.

you nailed it.

nobody's talking about suspending the constitution. well, except for you.

[fj1200]

Nothing new there.

Personally I'd add a clause that made it clear that unborn children cannot be subject to drugs or medical procedures that will clearly harm the child.

Since you're already advocating something that will never pass, go for broke.

Isn't there a problem with needing to declare freedom from something government imposed that is unconstitutional to begin with? Compounding legislation, as usual

If however it is the only form of relief from unconstitutional rule, I'd be be for it.

Excellent point. These are legislative issues IMO and any constitutional amending would be misread by those who wish to misread. Equal Rights Amendment all over again.